Plaintiff Aziza Mukhtar, a refugee admitted to the United States in 2010, applied for lawful permanent resident status in 2015. USCIS initially denied her application in July 2020, citing an incomplete medical examination form (Form I-693) that failed to address her history of mental health conditions and criminal arrests. Mukhtar sued in the District of Colorado, asking the court to set aside the July 2020 denial and direct USCIS to issue a new decision. While her lawsuit was pending, USCIS sua sponte reopened her application, issued a Request for Evidence for a new medical exam, and ultimately denied the application again in May 2024 after Mukhtar failed to respond to the request. USCIS then moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that because it had already issued the new decision Mukhtar requested, the case was moot. The district court agreed and dismissed the case, leading to this appeal.
The Tenth Circuit, writing through Circuit Judge Carson, affirmed the dismissal based on the doctrine of mootness. The court explained that Article III requires an actual controversy; if the controversy dissipates before the case concludes, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The court evaluated the case claim by claim. First, regarding the primary request to set aside the July 2020 denial and order a new decision, the court found the case moot because USCIS had already reopened the application and issued a new decision in May 2024. The court noted that if Mukhtar believed the new decision was unlawful, she needed to amend her complaint to challenge that specific action, which she did not do. Second, the court addressed the request for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. While fee claims can sometimes survive mootness, the court noted that no final decision on fees had been made by the district court, so the issue was not before the appellate court. Third, the court rejected the argument that the case fell under the 'capable of repetition yet evading review' exception. The court reasoned that the duration of the agency's action was not too short to be litigated, and Mukhtar had ample opportunity to challenge the new decision by amending her complaint. The court also clarified that USCIS did not act ultra vires when reopening the case, as it complied with the regulatory requirement to provide at least 30 days for the plaintiff to submit additional evidence.
The dismissal stands, meaning Mukhtar cannot pursue judicial review of the original July 2020 denial. The decision reinforces that immigration plaintiffs must carefully monitor agency actions during litigation; if an agency provides the relief sought, the plaintiff must promptly amend their complaint to challenge any subsequent adverse actions to avoid dismissal on mootness grounds. It also clarifies that the 'capable of repetition yet evading review' exception is narrow and does not apply when the plaintiff has the opportunity to litigate the new action but fails to do so.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download